**5. Biofuels for the production of energy**

Biomass represents a continuously renewable potential source of biogas and other biofuels and thus is certainly an option to inevitable fossil fuel depletion. Biogas can be economically converted to methane at facilities ranging from smallholder utility equipments to large scale plants and therefore can be tailored to supply rural and urban gas needs as well as meet regional and nationwide energy demands. According to Shoemaker and Visser (2000), the composition of biogas produced by anaerobic digestion as compared to natural gas is given in Table 2. It is readily seen from the table that overall, biogas is of a better quality than natural gas and possesses much less potential for polluting the environment. Biogas therefore constitutes a good alternative to natural gas.


Table 2. Compositions of Natural Gas and Biogas by Volume

However, the present potential of biofuels to enhance energy security is limited. Globally, the huge volume of biofuels required to substitute for fossil fuels is beyond the present overall capacity of global agriculture. For example in the year 2006/2007, the United States used 20 percent of its maize harvest for ethanol production, which replaced only three percent of its petrol consumption (World Bank, 2008). The possibility of more significant displacement of fossil fuels should be possible with second and third generation biofuels.

conditions.

Potentials of Selected Tropical Crops and Manure as Sources of Biofuels 7

which is significantly larger in volume than that produced by dead plants. Although this does not increase global warming because of the carbon cycle (Keppler et al.*,* 2006), it is not readily recoverable for economic purposes. However, the methane which is recoverable for the direct production of energy is from dead plants and other dead biomass under anaerobic

Prasad et al., (2007) observed that with world reserves of petroleum fast depleting, ethanol has in recent years emerged as the most important alternative resource for liquid fuel and has generated a great deal of research interest in ethanol fermentation. The paper noted that research on improving ethanol production has been accelerating for both ecological and economic reasons, primarily for its use as an alternative to petroleum-based fuels. Based on their genetic diversity, climatic adaptation, biomass and sugar production, field crops have the best potential as large scale fuel sources. Lignocellulosic biomass is the most abundant organic raw material in the world. As observed further, the production of ethanol from renewable lignocellulosic resources will improve energy availability, reduce dependence on petroleum based fuels, decrease air pollution, and diminish atmospheric CO2 accumulation. Using the by-products of crop processing for ethanol production will also reduce waste

Adelekan (2011) in laboratory experiments compared the ethanol productivity of selected varieties of cassava, sorghum and maize crops widely grown in West Africa by correlating volumes and masses of ethanol produced to the masses of samples used. The rate of ethanol production were found to be 145 l/tonne, 135 l/tonne and 346 l/tonne for cassava (variety TMS 30555), sorghum and maize respectively. In terms of ethanol productivity, the order observed in the study was maize > cassava > sorghum. The dried mash produced from the process was analysed for its nutritive quality and that from cassava was found to contain 61.8 calories of food energy per 100g; that from maize and sorghum; 59.5 and 58.1 calories respectively, making them good materials for livestock feed composition. Overall, the ethanol produced from these tropical crop varieties is of a good quality. The key advantage is that the ethanol is being produced from renewable sources which are also sustainable. The production and use of ethanol from cassava, sorghum and maize crop is recommended particularly in West African countries which often suffer crucial problems in respect of sourcing and delivery of fossil fuels and also in other tropical countries where these crop varieties are grown. In such places, ethanol can be blended with gasoline. The key production process used is fermentation and this being a natural process is very efficient,

Chynoweth and Isaacson (1987) observed that in any anaerobic digestion process that is not inhibited or kinetically limited, two major factors affecting methane yields are feedstock composition and inoculum characteristics. The composition of the biodegradable organic compounds can influence methane yield in that reduced compounds such as fats and proteins produce a higher percentage of methane than oxidized compounds such as sugars. Ultimate methane yields are however, influenced principally by the biodegradability of the organic components. The same paper noted further that each anaerobic environment may differ in the types of bacteria involved in the methanogenesis, depending on differing factors such as substrate, retention time, temperature, pH, and fluctuations in environmental

disposal problems and lower the risks of polluting the environment.

safe and not destructive to the environment.

**6. Conditions for anaerobic biodigestion** 

Theoretically, biomass includes every material of plant or animal origin. However, the focus of research and use of biomass in practical terms is on those materials from which biogas, ethanol and biodiesel may be derived at economic scales. Earlier researchers reported successes which have been advanced by more recent works. Hill (1984) conducted experiments to investigate methane productivity of some animal waste types at low temperatures and very low volatile solids concentrations. Results indicated that there are large differences between the waste types and that poultry waste produced the highest biogas yield for animal live weight (LW) while dairy waste was the least productive on a LW and total solids (TS) basis. This result corroborates those of Huang and Shin (1981), Huang et al., (1982), and Shih (1984). These studies evaluated the potential of methane generation from chicken manure and also assessed the performance of poultry waste digesters. Of further interest is the finding of the last paper, which showed that a high rate of gas produced at 4.5 v/v/day (methane 3.0 v/v/day) can be reached at 50C, 4–day retention time (RT) and 6% volatile solids (VS) concentration. Shih (1984) further pointed out that if this potential can be obtained on a poultry farm, the process of anaerobic digestion for waste treatment and energy production would be economically attractive. The potentials of other kinds of livestock waste for biogas production have also been investigated for example dairy manure (Lindley and Haughen, 1985), beef cattle manure (Hamiton et al., 1985) and pig manure (Fedler and Day, 1985). A common result however, is that these particular livestock waste types did not produce biogas as much as poultry manure in the experiments conducted. In experiments conducted on a digester (Ghederim et al., 1985) gas yields related to the organic matter fed to the digester were 0.5 to 0.6m3/kg for pig farm sludge and 0.2 to 0.3m3/kg in the case of beef cattle waste. Methane content varied between 60 and 70%.

The possibility of manure–straw mixtures producing more gas than manure alone continues to engage the interests of researchers. Jantrania and White (1985) found that high–solids anaerobic fermentation of poultry manure mixed with corn stover at 30% to 35% initial total solids produced biogas quantitatively comparable to slurry type anaerobic fermentation. However, the retention time of the process was much longer than required in the conventional process. Hills and Roberts (1979) had earlier reported a substantial increase of methane produced from rice–straw manure and barley–straw manure mixtures compared to manure alone. In a comparative study of pig manure and pig manure–corn stover, Fujita et al (1980) concluded that the mixtures produced more methane than manure alone. In a pit– scale study of wheat straw–manure mixture, Hashimoto and Robinson (1985) found a methane production of 0.25m3 CH4/kg of volatile solids (VS).

In more contemporary papers, several researchers have recently reported improvements in biofuel production from various agricultural materials including biogas from mixtures of cassava peels and livestock wastes (Adelekan and Bamgboye, 2009a), biogas from pretreated water hyacinth (Ofuefule et al., 2009), methanol from cow dung (Ajayi, 2009) fuel from indigenous biomass wastes (Saptoadi et al., 2009), ethanol from non-edible plant parts (Inderlwildi and King, 2009), as well as biogas from various livestock wastes (Adelekan and Bamgboye, 2009b). Adelekan (2012) showed that cassava, an often neglected but sturdy crop is a potent energy crop for the production of methane and ethanol, and presented production estimates for these biofuels based on cassava yield from the tropical countries. It has been discovered that, under aerobic conditions, living plants also produce methane

Theoretically, biomass includes every material of plant or animal origin. However, the focus of research and use of biomass in practical terms is on those materials from which biogas, ethanol and biodiesel may be derived at economic scales. Earlier researchers reported successes which have been advanced by more recent works. Hill (1984) conducted experiments to investigate methane productivity of some animal waste types at low temperatures and very low volatile solids concentrations. Results indicated that there are large differences between the waste types and that poultry waste produced the highest biogas yield for animal live weight (LW) while dairy waste was the least productive on a LW and total solids (TS) basis. This result corroborates those of Huang and Shin (1981), Huang et al., (1982), and Shih (1984). These studies evaluated the potential of methane generation from chicken manure and also assessed the performance of poultry waste digesters. Of further interest is the finding of the last paper, which showed that a high rate of gas produced at 4.5 v/v/day (methane 3.0 v/v/day) can be reached at 50C, 4–day retention time (RT) and 6% volatile solids (VS) concentration. Shih (1984) further pointed out that if this potential can be obtained on a poultry farm, the process of anaerobic digestion for waste treatment and energy production would be economically attractive. The potentials of other kinds of livestock waste for biogas production have also been investigated for example dairy manure (Lindley and Haughen, 1985), beef cattle manure (Hamiton et al., 1985) and pig manure (Fedler and Day, 1985). A common result however, is that these particular livestock waste types did not produce biogas as much as poultry manure in the experiments conducted. In experiments conducted on a digester (Ghederim et al., 1985) gas yields related to the organic matter fed to the digester were 0.5 to 0.6m3/kg for pig farm sludge and 0.2 to 0.3m3/kg in the case of beef cattle waste. Methane content varied

The possibility of manure–straw mixtures producing more gas than manure alone continues to engage the interests of researchers. Jantrania and White (1985) found that high–solids anaerobic fermentation of poultry manure mixed with corn stover at 30% to 35% initial total solids produced biogas quantitatively comparable to slurry type anaerobic fermentation. However, the retention time of the process was much longer than required in the conventional process. Hills and Roberts (1979) had earlier reported a substantial increase of methane produced from rice–straw manure and barley–straw manure mixtures compared to manure alone. In a comparative study of pig manure and pig manure–corn stover, Fujita et al (1980) concluded that the mixtures produced more methane than manure alone. In a pit– scale study of wheat straw–manure mixture, Hashimoto and Robinson (1985) found a

In more contemporary papers, several researchers have recently reported improvements in biofuel production from various agricultural materials including biogas from mixtures of cassava peels and livestock wastes (Adelekan and Bamgboye, 2009a), biogas from pretreated water hyacinth (Ofuefule et al., 2009), methanol from cow dung (Ajayi, 2009) fuel from indigenous biomass wastes (Saptoadi et al., 2009), ethanol from non-edible plant parts (Inderlwildi and King, 2009), as well as biogas from various livestock wastes (Adelekan and Bamgboye, 2009b). Adelekan (2012) showed that cassava, an often neglected but sturdy crop is a potent energy crop for the production of methane and ethanol, and presented production estimates for these biofuels based on cassava yield from the tropical countries. It has been discovered that, under aerobic conditions, living plants also produce methane

methane production of 0.25m3 CH4/kg of volatile solids (VS).

between 60 and 70%.

which is significantly larger in volume than that produced by dead plants. Although this does not increase global warming because of the carbon cycle (Keppler et al.*,* 2006), it is not readily recoverable for economic purposes. However, the methane which is recoverable for the direct production of energy is from dead plants and other dead biomass under anaerobic conditions.

Prasad et al., (2007) observed that with world reserves of petroleum fast depleting, ethanol has in recent years emerged as the most important alternative resource for liquid fuel and has generated a great deal of research interest in ethanol fermentation. The paper noted that research on improving ethanol production has been accelerating for both ecological and economic reasons, primarily for its use as an alternative to petroleum-based fuels. Based on their genetic diversity, climatic adaptation, biomass and sugar production, field crops have the best potential as large scale fuel sources. Lignocellulosic biomass is the most abundant organic raw material in the world. As observed further, the production of ethanol from renewable lignocellulosic resources will improve energy availability, reduce dependence on petroleum based fuels, decrease air pollution, and diminish atmospheric CO2 accumulation. Using the by-products of crop processing for ethanol production will also reduce waste disposal problems and lower the risks of polluting the environment.

Adelekan (2011) in laboratory experiments compared the ethanol productivity of selected varieties of cassava, sorghum and maize crops widely grown in West Africa by correlating volumes and masses of ethanol produced to the masses of samples used. The rate of ethanol production were found to be 145 l/tonne, 135 l/tonne and 346 l/tonne for cassava (variety TMS 30555), sorghum and maize respectively. In terms of ethanol productivity, the order observed in the study was maize > cassava > sorghum. The dried mash produced from the process was analysed for its nutritive quality and that from cassava was found to contain 61.8 calories of food energy per 100g; that from maize and sorghum; 59.5 and 58.1 calories respectively, making them good materials for livestock feed composition. Overall, the ethanol produced from these tropical crop varieties is of a good quality. The key advantage is that the ethanol is being produced from renewable sources which are also sustainable. The production and use of ethanol from cassava, sorghum and maize crop is recommended particularly in West African countries which often suffer crucial problems in respect of sourcing and delivery of fossil fuels and also in other tropical countries where these crop varieties are grown. In such places, ethanol can be blended with gasoline. The key production process used is fermentation and this being a natural process is very efficient, safe and not destructive to the environment.
